Roseberry-Andrews v. Wilson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that where the defendant went ahead after the court advised the guilty plea could result in his deportation, there was no evidence of prejudice
• holding that where deportation is not mandatory, \counsel must highlight for noncitizen clients that entering a guilty plea will place them at risk of removal\
• holding that, prior to Nuñez-Valdéz, \it was hardly revolutionary under New Jersey law that an attorney could not actually give wrong or inaccurate information about immigration consequences of a guilty plea without risking an assertion of having provided ineffective assistance\
• stating that “Padilla involved no simple application of the well-established Strickland rule to a new set of facts”
• determining that Padilla does not “reach the heights required for a ‘watershed’ rule” under Te ague
• holding the United State Supreme Court's ruling that defense counsel must advise clients of immigration consequences of pleading guilty was not to be applied retroactively

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).